Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

:lol Chris Matthews with a good point after all.

"How come Reagan was lambasted for taking 2 million dollars to speak after leaving office, but Bill Clinton can make 50 million?"

 

[Triumph]

Totally agree. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want one party controlling government with such huge margins other than blind partisianship.

I kind of doubt that was your thinking in 2000. Also, just because one party used their control of the legislative and executive branches and fucked up doesn't mean that it always has to be that way.

 

[maynerd]

I kind of doubt that was your thinking in 2000. Also, just because one party used their control of the legislative and executive branches and fucked up doesn't mean that it always has to be that way.

Cue SD's line...

Absolute power.....you know the rest.

 

[scorcho]

supermajority?

 

[siamesedreamer]

I kind of doubt that was your thinking in 2000.

Actually, it was 2004.

No excuses...but I've learned.

 

[KRS7]

Totally agree. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want one party controlling government with such huge margins other than blind partisianship.

I don't agree with the Democrats on some issues, and think balance in government is important. But I think a democratic landslide will be a good thing this election because it will send a message to the Republicans that they really fucked up these past few years on a wide range of issues. The Republicans have so pissed me off, that I actually want them to lose more than I want the Democrats to win.

I think that in 2010 we will see some of the 2008 democratic gains reduced by more moderate Republicans. I think there is a wide chasm between the Republican party and the majority of Americans, and it will take a large loss for them to see it and begin to moderate their positions.

 

[scorcho]

but SD - you're voting based on the issues that each party/candidate offers, not the threat of the supermajority. why should other people compromise their preferred policy beliefs (if they liberal for instance) just to buck against a party controlling both branches of government?

there's an ebb and flow in politics, and right now what is needed is a radical shakeup in DC, not just an extension of the last eight years. if Democrats overplay their hands then the midterm elections will reward the GOP handsomely.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Who's lying more?

 

[siamesedreamer]

why should other people compromise their preferred policy beliefs (if they liberal for instance) just to buck against a party controlling both branches of government?

Because there are no checks and balances on the people in power.

 

[Cheebs]

Because there are no checks and balances on the people in power.

Yes there is. The American voter. If Americans WANT a one-party controlled government and vote for that, isn't that democracy in action?

 

[Triumph]

Who's lying more?

Yawn. Until McCain adequately explains how we get to a state where there are no combat casualties or injuries, I think it's fair to hammer him on that statement. In return, McCain can make fun of Obama for not wearing a lapel pin.

 

[scorcho]

besides for elections (which are the ultimate measures of accountability in a democracy) and the Constitution, that's where the media and its domain over public opprobrium is supposed to step in and keep a politically astute citizenry alert.

 

[schuelma]

Yawn. Until McCain adequately explains how we get to a state where there are no combat casualties or injuries, I think it's fair to hammer him on that statement. .

It's fair to hammer him for that statement as being unrealistic and vague, certainly, but Obama is flat out lying about what he said. No spin or rationalization- Obama is saying that McCain said something he did not.

 

[Triumph]

It's fair to hammer him for that statement as being unrealistic and vague, certainly, but Obama is flat out lying about what he said. No spin or rationalization- Obama is saying that McCain said something he did not.

That all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

[schuelma]

That all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Tell me you're just being ironic

 

[Amir0x]

Chuck Todd wizard said whatever the polls on average say about Clinton in PA, give her an automatic +4% thanks to having the machine behind her. Because Chuck Todd Wizard is the man, I am going to attach +4% to all the polls from now on.

 

[electricpirate]

Totally agree. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want one party controlling government with such huge margins other than blind partisianship.

I actually agree with this, Dem Excessess at the start of the clinton years and republican implosion since 2003 was pretty brutal. Part of why the republicans took so much power. Theres a great This American Life about how they turned the house of representatives into a one party playground (scheduling meetings and never telling the dems, literally locking dem members of comittees out of discussions).

http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=325

Story three

Pretty predictably the dems seem to be going around and returning the favor. I actually support a split or slightly republican congress and Obama as president, but it will probably be large dem majorities and a dem president.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What would gaf do if Jesse Ventura was Obama's running mate?

 

[Stinkles]

Indeed. The Democratic party could nominate Bozo the Clown and would still win in a landslide. I find it very hard to believe that after 8 years of George the Clown in the White House aided by a supine congress that voters are going to give these bozos another shot for a long time. With the gallon of milk reaching nearly $5 and gas inching towards $4 and the fact that 140,000 troops remain in Iraq with no viable solution to "winning" or extrication I just do not believe a Republican will win the presidency. Not to mention the downticket races... it's going to be a full slaughter.

Problem is, America now firmly relates that horror to Dubya specifically, not the Republican party - something the RNC is keen to promote too. Even Fox is on the case. However, it's easy enough for dems to push the Bush/McCain link.

 

[User 10639]

Because there are no checks and balances on the people in power.

Theoretically, that's what the Supreme Court is for. It is the one branch that the people of the country have no control over, after all.

 

[KarishBHR]

You guys need to chill out. He is probably going to lose PA, and when people like us start thinking otherwise, that's when the news thinks its a huge win for Clinton.

He will lose PA... barring a miracle

 

[MightyHedgehog]

All he has to do is make it really close in PA to shut the door on Clinton in a big way.

 

[DrForester]

All he has to do is make it really close in PA to shut the door on Clinton in a big way.

Not really, if Hillary hasn't quit yet, ANY win on her part will be seen as a victory by the comeback kid and she will continue. Won't do her any good, but any win will be seen as a win.

 

[Tamanon]

All he has to do is make it really close in PA to shut the door on Clinton in a big way.

Honestly, the door has been shut on Clinton for a while, she just keeps trying the windows now.

 

[siamesedreamer]

As much as it pains me to post something from TP, this is the shit I just don't get with McCain. I mean like WTF? I imagine it'll make for some nice 527 advertisement material this fall.

 

[Mermandala]

Honestly, the door has been shut on Clinton for a while, she just keeps trying the windows now.

PA is more like sizing up the chimney and if that fails nothing left to do but tunneling in through the basement.

 

[Tamanon]

As much as it pains me to post something from TP, this is the shit I just don't get with McCain. I mean like WTF? I imagine it'll make for some nice 527 advertisement material this fall.

I don't understand McCain's approach to the military. He seems to be more talk than fire there.

 

[v1cious]

Not really, if Hillary hasn't quit yet, ANY win on her part will be seen as a victory by the comeback kid and she will continue. Won't do her any good, but any win will be seen as a win.

except everyone already expects her to win. the real battleground will be May 6. if she doesn't win at least one of those states it's over, i don't care how much she tries to spin it.

 

[DrForester]

except everyone already expects her to win. the real battleground will be May 6. if she doesn't win at least one of those states it's over, i don't care how much she tries to spin it.

Remember Texas and Ohio.

First it was "Must win both 70%+ or it's over

Then it was "must win both"

Then it was "Must win 1"

Then when the night was over "Hillary has flawless victory".

A win will be seen as a win.

 

[Particle Physicist]

However, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want one party controlling government with such huge margins other than blind partisianship.

i agree with you here. the prospect of one party having complete control over the government is not a good thing.. but at the same time, i feel as if McCain is the wrong choice for our presidency.. its definitely a bit of a conundrum, but weighing everything together.. i would rather have a completely democrat government, over a bush 2.0 .

:/

 

[kkaabboomm]

interesting update from chuck todd about MSNBC's super delegate numbers:

according to First Read, super numbers are 255-225 Clinton over Obama. This includes Dahlman from Montana, but does not include Campbell's rescinded endorsement.

This number does NOT include arkansas's add-on delegate that, while chosen a month ago, just now publicly endorsed Clinton, so that would put the differential at 31.

However, I emailed Chuck about the super-delegate add-ons that were chosen this weekend in Delaware, DC, Missouri, Florida (which currently don't count) and North Dakota. His response about why they haven't been added to MSNBC's official count:

some have, some haven't... it depends on if these folks have come out and endorsed and we can re-confirm it

(my bold emphasis added)

the information about where the following add-ons comes straight from demconwatch....

* DC's 2 super add-on's are one officially pro-Obama and endorsed, one verbally pro-Clinton but won't endorse as his district went 80% to Obama and he's waiting to make a decision.
* Delaware picked their one super add-on, who's role in the Obama campaign is one he considers 'a volunteer'. So that super delegate add-on vote will go to him...
* Missouri chose their 2 super add-on's, one who has publicly endorsed Obama, one who has indicated no preference.
* North Dakota picked their one super add-on, who is a senior aide in the Obama North Dakota office.

Overall, while demconwatch's numbers are more 'well sourced', I tend to trust MSNBC's numbers as they tend to have the most number of committed's for both sides. When/if they add these new add ons, and you consider Campbells 'retracted endorsement' as a vote, the new numbers would be:

257-229, a difference of 28.

 

[Amir0x]

Chuck Todd Wizard responded to you? *swoon*

 

[v1cious]

Remember Texas and Ohio.

First it was "Must win both 70%+ or it's over

Then it was "must win both"

Then it was "Must win 1"

Then when the night was over "Hillary has flawless victory".

A win will be seen as a win.

Hillary was coming off a 12 state losing streak, that's why it was big news. Pennsylvania however, has always shown her ahead. the big news story would be if Obama somehow won.

 

[kkaabboomm]

Chuck Todd Wizard responded to you? *swoon*

The Wizard did indeed. But I think it's more important to find more, proper, re-confirmed sources for him and his team so his super-delegate numbers can be even more up to date and thus ensuring he remains The Wizard.

 

[human5892]

Hillary was coming off a 12 state losing streak, that's why it was big news. Pennsylvania however, has always shown her ahead. the big news story would be if Obama somehow won.

Yeah, as much as the MSM has coalesced around her campaign to date, I can't see them moving the goalposts yet again if she somehow lost PA. Maybe I'm being naive, but I would actually not be surprised if Hillary herself called it quits in that scenario. I initially thought otherwise, but lately many news outlets seem to have come back to reality (a bit, and CNN not withstanding) with regards to the status of her campaign.

That being said, I'm quite sure that she'll take PA -- and sadly, I think the MSM will portray a win in an excruciatingly positive light for her no matter how narrow the victory.

 

[maximum360]

Yeah, as much as the MSM has coalesced around her campaign to date, I can't see them moving the goalposts yet again if she somehow lost PA. Maybe I'm being naive, but I would actually not be surprised if Hillary herself called it quits in that scenario. I initially thought otherwise, but lately many news outlets seem to have come back to reality (a bit, and CNN not withstanding) with regards to the status of her campaign.

That being said, I'm quite sure that she'll take PA -- and sadly, I think the MSM will portray a win in an excruciatingly positive light for her no matter how narrow the victory.

Don't worry, Wolf on CNN will find a way to spin even a loss for Hillary even though she's been highly favored in PA as a positive for her (as ridiculous as that sounds).

 

[scorcho]

yes. so CNN is now pro-Clinton now. sure.

 

[lopaz]

yes. so CNN is now pro-Clinton now. sure.

now? now?

 

[pxleyes]

yes. so CNN is now pro-Clinton now. sure.

I hate this argument over what networks are pulling for who. Unless it is Faux News which is completely slanted to McCain, the other networks are looking out for only one thing, ratings. They will be "pro-Hillary" only to try and drum up controversy and interest in the primary even if Obama continues to pull away.

 

[maximum360]

I hate this argument over what networks are pulling for who. Unless it is Faux News which is completely slanted to McCain, the other networks are looking out for only one thing, ratings. They will be "pro-Hillary" only to try and drum up controversy and interest in the primary even if Obama continues to pull away.

I've already made my case about CNN's reason for claiming that the race is still close. Ratings baiting.

 

[human5892]

I hate this argument over what networks are pulling for who. Unless it is Faux News which is completely slanted to McCain, the other networks are looking out for only one thing, ratings. They will be "pro-Hillary" only to try and drum up controversy and interest in the primary even if Obama continues to pull away.

It happens to different degrees depending on the network and the reporter/personality in question, though. Wolf Blitzer, for example, has demonstrated repeatedly throughout these past few months that he is more willing than some of his other colleagues to entertain the idea of a "virtual tie", "anyone's game", etc. The consequence is that although he/CNN may not actually be pro-Hillary, they often come off that way.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Finally, an Oregon poll, and from SUSA no less.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=e70ecbfe-c65e-4f34-a030-1d9c805f6b35&q=45558

Obama by 10, 52-42.

 

[KRS7]

Don't worry, Wolf on CNN will find a way to spin even a loss for Hillary even though she's been highly favored in PA as a positive for her (as ridiculous as that sounds).

It's not hard to spin this. He is outspending her by heavy margins. That is enough to discredit his gains. Clinton surrogates are now harping this point on a daily basis (couldn't possibly be anything wrong with Hillary).

He will probably lose by single digits. And then you will learn how Hillary, against all odds, while being outspent handily by Obama, still managed to eek out a win in Pennsylvania. That will be the narrative of the night. Reality will set in latter from some, but she will still have the Wednesday and probably the rest of the week to bask in the win, nevermind blowing a 30pt lead.

Among the highlights next fortnight, will be extensive exit polling pointing to a racial divide in Pennsylvania. The Reverend Wright issue will undoubtedly be part of every exit poll, and pundits will be exaggerating and exacerbating any divisions they can find. There will be talks about the race chasm. There will be questions about buyers remorse, and rather Obama can really seal the deal. In summation, I predict absolutely atrocious commentary by almost everyone involved in the primary coverage.

In other words it will be similar to primary coverage we've seen lately. If Obama wins however, then I think Hillary will need to pull out, or be relegated to sub-Huckabee status. But there is no way I think she will lose with current trends. She will need to make some additional major blunders to lose this contest.

 

[lopaz]

It's not hard to spin this. He is outspending her by heavy margins. That is enough to discredit his gains. Clinton surrogates are now harping this point on a daily basis (couldn't possibly be anything wrong with Hillary).

He will probably lose by single digits. And then you will learn how Hillary, against all odds, while being outspent handily by Obama, still managed to eek out a win in Pennsylvania. That will be the narrative of the night. Reality will set in latter from some, but she will still have the Wednesday and probably the rest of the week to bask in the win, nevermind blowing a 30pt lead.

Among the highlights next fortnight, will be extensive exit polling pointing to a racial divide in Pennsylvania. The Reverend Wright issue will undoubtedly be part of every exit poll, and pundits will be exaggerating and exacerbating any divisions they can find. There will be talks about the race chasm. There will be questions about buyers remorse, and rather Obama can really seal the deal. In summation, I predict absolutely atrocious commentary by almost everyone involved in the primary coverage.

In other words it will be similar to primary coverage we've seen lately. If Obama wins however, then I think Hillary will need to pull out, or be relegated to sub-Huckabee status. But there is no way I think she will lose with current trends. She will need to make some additional major blunders to lose this contest.

The spending point is worthless, if she can't raise the money it's her fault

 

[Tamanon]

Someone should question why she is being outspent so much if she raised at a minimum half what he did. Maybe that would get some more figures on how much is primary money and how much is garbage money?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Finally, an Oregon poll, and from SUSA no less.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=e70ecbfe-c65e-4f34-a030-1d9c805f6b35&q=45558

Obama by 10, 52-42.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Someone should question why she is being outspent so much if she raised at a minimum half what he did. Maybe that would get some more figures on how much is primary money and how much is garbage money?

Because a huge portion of her cash inflow is designated for the GE

 

[Zeed]

yes. so CNN is now pro-Clinton now. sure.

You're fucking oblivious.

 

[Mifune]

Yeah, as much as the MSM has coalesced around her campaign to date, I can't see them moving the goalposts yet again if she somehow lost PA. Maybe I'm being naive, but I would actually not be surprised if Hillary herself called it quits in that scenario. I initially thought otherwise, but lately many news outlets seem to have come back to reality (a bit, and CNN not withstanding) with regards to the status of her campaign.

This morning NPR was saying Clinton is an extreme long shot to win the nomination. If you've been listening to NPR at all over the last couple months, you'll know that what you say about news outlets coming back to reality is definitely true.

Funny it took Mark Penn getting the axe for them to realize this.

 

[Tamanon]

Because a huge portion of her cash inflow is designated for the GE

Exactly, like I said, garbage money